Chupa-mos

@q_slavic But if you kill two killers, it drops.

If you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world remains the same.

@MercuriusFilius Assuming 50 years, I'd say somewhere around 5k. At 5% a year returns compounding (very conservative), after 50 years the 5k would be 57k. That is > the 50k of 1k a year.

How would you answer this common Raymond James interview question?

@furious_cs @MercuriusFilius Wrong. Inflation exists. Also, money know is worth more than money later, even without inflation, due to opportunity cost and investing. Your answer is idiotic.

@MercuriusFilius I would say, "I believe that I will live to age 90". You would then simply deduct your current age from 90 and multiply by $1,000. LOL!

@gfhcdrhvxr81575 @MercuriusFilius It's not 1/0 and 49/1. It's 1/0 and 49/50.

@SotaoM @MercuriusFilius Read the question wrong, it’s just 1/0 and 49/1 them, like a 75% chance

How would you answer this common Goldman Sachs interview question?

@tcudoug @MercuriusFilius "You pay $10 per roll". You risk all your money because you need to roll enough times to spend all your money at $10 per roll. The d20 is the best choice provided your initial bank is at least 10k or so, since 1000 rolls would be more than enough to overcome volatily.

@MercuriusFilius Expectation value of d20 = 10.5 Expectation value of 4d4 = 10 Small difference. The 4d4 gives a higher floor but lower ceiling, so the real test is risk tolerance. The bit about "all my money" would make me risk-averse, so I'd pick 4d4. For smaller amounts, I could go d20.

How would you answer this common J.P. Morgan interview question?

@patrickhays2 @MercuriusFilius The average roll of 4 d4s is not 12-13. It's 10.

@MercuriusFilius The average roll of a d4 is 12-13, the average roll of a d20 is 10-11. D20 is higher risk/higher reward. So it would depend entirely on if this bet is for fun or survival. Fun? D20. Survival? D4s.

@DocBinOR @MercuriusFilius If the expected return was the same, yes. But the expected return of the d20 is slightly higher, so it's the "mathematically correct" choice.

@MercuriusFilius This isn't a math question; it's a risk assessment question. Are you willing to assume the greater risk of rolling 1d20 with a minimum return of 1, or the safer roll of the 4d4 with a minimum return of 4? Strictly a measure of how reckless someone is going to be financially.

@gfhcdrhvxr81575 @MercuriusFilius there are only two buckets, wtf.

@MercuriusFilius 1/0 1/0 48/50 Gives you like an 80% chance to choose a black ball

@CesarJB Tu é que não estás. Estás a assumir, por exemplo, que todo o pai é filho, e que portanto não podem ser seis pessoas. E isso nem funciona, porque a ser esse o caso a resposta 3 estaria errada. Nunca podia haver só um neto, dado que o avô e o pai também são netos de alguém.

@SotaoM É sim. Você não está usando o raciocínio lógico.

Quantas pessoas tinham no carro?

@CesarJB Agora, se a pergunta fosse qual o MÍNIMO número de pessoas que satisfaz a premissa, aí a resposta seria 3. Mas não é essa a pergunta. Como está feita, a resposta é que não é possível determinar.

@SotaoM Não falta nenhuma informação. Use o raciocínio lógico.

@CesarJB Falta informação. Nada me diz se as categorias são exclusivas. Um avô é um pai, mas nada me diz se está incluído nos 2 pais (inclusivo) ou não. Eu posso olhar para 1 avô com 2 filhos (que por sua vez têm filhos) e dizer que estão ali um avô e 2 pais, e não 3 pais. Depende.

@mayank5885 @kenneyo24 The answer is we can't fucking know. There's AT LEAST 11. But there may be a mother as well (we don't know). There may be grandparents (we don't know). Etc.

Answer is 11. There is 1 man (the father). He has 9 sons. Each of those sons has a sister. This means all 9 sons share the same one sister (their common sibling, a daughter of the man). Total: 1 (father) + 9 (sons) + 1 (daughter) = 11 The trick is in the wording. Many people misread it as each son having his own separate sister, which would imply 9 different sisters (leading to wrong answers like 19 or 20 children).

How many people are in the family?

@Poetpablo15 @Footballtweet Neymar is overrated af

@Footballtweet Lol So Gig thinks he's better than Neymar 😃

🤐 Ryan Giggs stays quiet until he hears a player better than him.

@Bitcoin_Teddy Or he moves to portugal and sells, 0% tax on crypto held over a year. Why go through all that bs?

Imagine a father who secures $100,000 in spot Bitcoin. He holds the asset until the valuation hits a massive $5,000,000. Liquidating the position directly triggers devastating taxes on $4,900,000 of pure profit. So he executes the perfect institutional maneuver instead. He locks the Bitcoin in a legal trust, takes out a collateralized loan against the stack, and lives off the borrowed liquidity. Because he never executed a sale, his tax liability remains at absolute zero. Upon his death, the heirs receive the Bitcoin with a brand new cost basis set exactly at $5,000,000. The government cannot legally touch a single cent of the accumulated gain. This is exactly how generational wealth is permanently secured.

@astrojoc Could be worse.

¿Cómo se dice ‘menos mal’ en inglés? Less bad ❌❌❌

@ptro_1912 @obenpontes E construíram também um monte de cidades no brasil, onde antes só havia selva. Que ficaram para o brasil aquando da independência. Não seja desonesto.

@obenpontes É que diferente do ouro, os impostos ficam aqui e, pelo menos em tese, são aplicados no país ou "devolvido" para a população em serviço (em tese) Já o ouro foi levado embora mesmo. Construíram uns palácios e umas igrejas em Portugal e todo resto foi pra Inglaterra em dívidas

@scardyor Now tell me how to make 1.5k a day.

$1M a year is just $50k a month. That's $11.5k a week. $1.5k a day. Break it down like that, and it feels way more doable.

@Tradealer @EddyXBT 1 - Not every year, yes, but on average you can get close. You do need to be lucky in the first few years, and reinvest a bit. 2 - False. You don't need to live in the US, and you shouldn't. 3 - False. You don't need to live in the US, and you shouldn't.

@EddyXBT (1) There is not such an investment. (2) Today you can barely make it with such monthly income, especially with a family. In 10 years with inflation you are going to be starving homeless. (3) You will get sick at some point sooner or later.

Most of you are delusional. $300K is more than enough to retire. 10% gains a year = $30K. That’s $2.5K a month. Rent. Food. WiFi. What else you need if you’re terminally online anyway?

@elonmusk Nah, that's just stupid. Being on the phone while on the car is NOT worth paying 100 a month, wtf.

I should also mention that the $99/month for supervised FSD will rise as FSD’s capabilities improve. The massive value jump is when you can be on your phone or sleeping for the entire ride (unsupervised FSD).